Step 1: Pretend to take offense to the Patriot act, even though you secretly love it because deep down you believe they only spy on brown people.Step 2: Listen to everything FOX says about Obama, up to and including the stuff they'll say when the Mueller Trump indictments come down where Obama set up a spacetime wormhole to store his secret plans in Gomorrah and they were so evil, God nuked the joint to ensure they never saw the light of day.Step 3: Listen to everything FOX says about Trump, including that his hair shines the way he does because it's a holy aura, not because he can't even follow instructions on a hair dye packet...

Even then, it's still a massive stretch, but no one said the quote was sane or remotely based in reality.

.......so I guess all those court rulings against him are just...what, not counted?

No, made by liberal activist anti-Constitutionalist (really anti-original-intent, pro-remembering-that-it's-2018) judges who have no business being on the bench.

(EDIT: said the opposite of what I meant)

« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 04:47:08 pm by dpareja »

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

They're one step away from doing the Jesus riding an ass/horse into Jerusalem. If the forefathers had known the golden child would one day sit on the throne (and tweet), they definitely would've written stuff into the constitution for his exceptionalism, just for him and him alone (until their next twat comes along) and the fact that he's doing stuff outside the constitution only proves how massively constitutional he is, because he knows when to break it, which makes him Lord of the Constitution or something.

I still think Jefferson had the single best take on Constitutions: they should be rewritten every 19 years. (Or once a generation was his argument, since "the earth belongs in usufruct to the living," so maybe every 25 years now.)

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

Actually, my favourite example of how "strict constructionists" ignore framers' intent is the Second Amendment.

The main concern brought up that led to its enactment was that standing armies are bad and have a tendency to overthrow governments. (Jefferson especially was concerned about this.) So the whole idea of the Second Amendment was to allow soldiers in the military to disperse to their states whenever they weren't needed to serve the country, and, to keep in training for the next muster, form "well-regulated militia[s]" and keep their guns.

The second purpose was brought up by Patrick Henry and George Mason (yes, the one they named the university after), who were afraid that certain guarantees in the Constitution would lead to escaped slaves being declared free by the courts. They asked Jefferson if the amendment would allow them to form armed militias to hunt down escaped slaves and recapture them before they could get to a free state. (Pennsylvania, perhaps, or Delaware--Henry and Mason lived in Virginia.) Jefferson agreed, and so that was the second purpose of the amendment: hunting down escaped slaves before they could reach freedom.

So the Second Amendment has two purposes: precluding the need for a standing army (which, for better or worse, is defunct today since the US has a huge standing military), and hunting down escaped slaves (which, very much for the better, is defunct today). But nope, MAH GUNZ!

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

Logged

There is no plague more evil and vile to watch spread than the plague that is the Von Habsburg dynasty.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

That's not quite the same, but that's a famous Steven Weinberg quote.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.Susan B. Anthony

The same can be said for reading between the lines, when the thing they're reading between the lines of is the justification, or more likely, an appeal to authority.

Which of course gets to a frustrating quote I read about 15 years ago I haven't been able to find again, about religion being a post hoc justification, sanctifying evil. (It used none of those words). The gist of it was that without religion, good people would be good anyway, and it just provides an excuse for bad people to be complete dicks and feel superior about it to boot. (It probably used none of those words either.) It is pretty sad to see complete dicks sniffing around the constitution seeing if they can usurp it to cleanse their evil (and to recruit). A metaphorical fig leaf, if nudity was a malevolent crime...

I don't know if its the right quote, but yours reminded me of this: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things, that takes religion."

I'd say a more accurate statement would be that it takes a strong ideological conviction and/or an authoritarian mindset. Many religious ideologies combine these two nicely but destructive secular ideologies are also able to seduce decent people. Religion is an easy and socially acceptable target but I'd argue that for example nationalism isn't much better in this regard.

Sure, but those approach fundamentalist religion in mindset. As Hitchens noted, the most religious state in the world is North Korea, where you wake up, go about your day, and fall asleep praising the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (I don't know what they're calling Un these days) all the while.

Morning Consult released their quarterly Senate popularity poll a few weeks ago. No points for guessing that, yet again, the most popular Senator is a socialist and the least popular is the Majority Leader.

But it does show some worrisome results for Democrats: Menendez, McCaskill, Baldwin and Tester are all up in 2018 and are all in the bottom 10.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 06:38:54 pm by dpareja »

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?